I am still not sure, why you would be even capable of talking about absolute moral positions like "sin".<quoted text>
Some examples, please.
The objection involves ethics that are completely unrelated to the person in question. Many men don't find abortion to be immoral even though an abortion is not an action they will ever commit. Their position cannot possibly be based on selfishness or their own 'sins'. Many heterosexuals do not find homosexuality to be immoral even though they will never engage in homosexuality. They are never confronted by these implications in any way.
You have still not provided us with the mechanism by which sin infects people or any mechanism by which we can detect it.
You have not been able to explain why morality is so different among cultures. Are non-Christian people simply inherently BAD? All those Hindus who go pray at their temple KNOW they are doing something evil but choose to do so anyway?
Your stance is absurd and unevidenced.
Additionally, your disingenuous "argument" can be used by ANY OTHER opposing moral system.
True morality is eating nothing but corn. If you eat anything else, you are sinning. And you know you're sinning. If you disagree that eating other things is a sin, that's just the sin talking.
The Bible clearly teaches that sin is inherited.
As to your point about a man condoning sin, not being a sinner, you might want to address that.
Men condoning sin are guilty of the sin they condone.
A man cheering on the murder of another man by a third party is just as guilty.
But if you had the courage of your convictions, you would first have the courage to show the basis for your absolute moral claims.
Why are you hiding that?
It is just another technique to suppress the truth.
You will not discuss it, because you know where it goes.
It is this suppression of truth, that proves my point.
You cannot and will not account for your use of absolute morality.
Therefore, you have no right or basis to condemn anyone elses position.
Put up or shut up as they say...